What is it about?
In this opinion piece, I present evidence that Green and Gold Open Access are still far from making all scholarly journal articles and books open and that this failure has allowed pirate sites like SciHub to emerge. I argue that the failure of Green and Gold is rooted in stakeholders' preference to avoid change compounded by the scale of the change needed. As a solution, I propose looking for inspiration at low-cost airlines and their success in democratising air travel by unbundling the traditional airline business model.
Featured Image
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Why is it important?
All stakeholders in scholarly communications agree that scholarship (journals and books) should be open for anyone to read online. Yet, 20 years after the Open Access movement was launched, half of journal articles and nearly all books remain behind paywalls. Policymakers and funders are, understandably, losing patience, so something needs to be done. Since the pace of change is so slow (and shows no signs of picking up), I argue that Green and Gold are part of the problem and propose that it's time to change direction.
Perspectives
This is an opinion piece which draws on a wide range of existing literature. I hope it is thought-provoking and stimulates a reasoned discussion in the community about how to accelerate the move to make all scholarship free to read online.
Toby Green
Coherent Digital LLC
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach, Learned Publishing, September 2017, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1116.
You can read the full text:
Resources
It’s time for “pushmi-pullyu” open access: servicing the distinct needs of readers and authors. (Blog post)
Blog post in LSE's Impact of Social Sciences Blog (October 24th, 2017). Summary: The open access movement has failed. Self-archiving and open-access journals are struggling to deliver 100% open access and probably never will. Moreover, readers, the curious minds it was hoped research would be opened to, have been marginalised from the debate. Toby Green suggests an unbundling of the often disparate, distinct services required by readers and authors; a new model for scholarly communications based on Doctor Dolittle’s “pushmi-pullyu”. The specific needs of authors preparing their papers and data for publication can be serviced on one side of the pushmi-pullyu; while on the other, freemium services ensure research is discoverable and readable by all, without payment, and a premium layer of reader-focused services ensures the evolving needs of readers are met.
We're still failing to deliver open access and solve the serials crisis. (Preprint)
A follow-up to this paper released as a preprint in September 2018. Reviews progress and developments since 2017, including Read and Publish deals and Plan S, and includes new thinking on how to unlock the paralysis in progress to open access.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
